UK Brexit. What should we spend the £8.5 billion savings on membership fees on if we leave?

If the figures I have are correct then it seems that the UK currently puts around £13 billion into the EU and takes around £4.5 billion out meaning that we put £8.5 billion into the EU.

This seems to be quite a contributing factor for many people choosing to vote to leave and that seems reasonable.

£8 billion sounds like a huge amount of money to the average man on the street, imagine what we could spend that on at home instead of giving it to the EU to spend on other countries eh?

Well imagine no longer and decide for yourself!

The screenshot below shows a rough breakdown of 2016 spending and the link underneath it takes you to the site so you can take a look at the individual breakdowns.



UK public spending 2016

Total spending is £759.5 billion so take your time and try and spend it wisely.

a reply to: nonspecific

Off the top of my head, 400,000 care workers on £20,000 a year salary?
Come on NS, plenty of ways that money could be well spent in the UK, do you disagree, how would YOU spend it?

Well since the EU buys about half of our exports we'll have to mark atleast a 16th to start emergancy trade partnerships and acquire future markets.

Research and development of our biggest exporters, aeronautics and pharmaceuticals and precious metals/gems?

mass overhaul of our transport network focusing mainly on industry, rail, sea and air.

Might as well stop now because the funds will be in gone just lending the money to rolls royce and GlaxoSmithKline. Problem is we don't save enough compared to the overall investment we'd need to cover the exit. Our major exports are well established and finite in terms of market with two, aerospace and precious resources being near purely dependant upon world needs and international co-operation.
UK export statistics

Another problem with leaving Europe is desire. I see plenty of desire to leave but I've seen little in how we tackle the shortcomings...Trade and investment. The math don't work, the only way I could see it working is if we overhauled the air industry or something and again this is a well established market and 8 billion wouldn't even get a project started in such fields.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

Off the top of my head, 400,000 care workers on £20,000 a year salary?
Come on NS, plenty of ways that money could be well spent in the UK, do you disagree, how would YOU spend it?

Do we need 400,000 extra care workers? I don't know?

Education would be a good idea I suppose if done correctly.

This is why I am asking, it seems like a lot but it's interesteing to look at how are money is spent and think about what any aditional funds could be put into.

a reply to: nonspecific

I only plucked the 400,000 care workers to demonstrate just how huge that sum of money is.
Could've picked nurses, hip replacement op's, disability benefits, you name it.
I would prefer that money spent in the UK not Estonia or Poland, perhaps you don't, at least we have a vote on it in June.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: nonspecific

I only plucked the 400,000 care workers to demonstrate just how huge that sum of money is.
Could've picked nurses, hip replacement op's, disability benefits, you name it.
I would prefer that money spent in the UK not Estonia or Poland, perhaps you don't, at least we have a vote on it in June.

It is a huge sum in some ways and not so huge in others.

I thought it would be interesting to see what benefit we could actually gain from the extra funding and show that although it sounds like a lot it is actually a fraction of overall spending.

I also find in interesting to look at what we do and do not spend public money on, we give around the same amount of £8.5 billion of our defence budget away in foreign economic aid yet this does not seem to bother people half as much as EU membership fees?

a reply to: nonspecific

For one thing, Britain could drop a couple of quid on a PR firm to come up with a better name than "Boaty McBoatface."

One thing I've always admired about the Brits, they knew how to name a vessel. The HMS Valiant, the HMS Invincible, the HMS KickazMofo. Names designed to strike fear in the hearts of the enemy. Here in the States, we name them after people. Who's going to be afraid of the USS Harriet Lane?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: nonspecific

For one thing, Britain could drop a couple of quid on a PR firm to come up with a better name than "Boaty McBoatface."

One thing I've always admired about the Brits, they knew how to name a vessel. The HMS Valiant, the HMS Invincible, the HMS KickazMofo. Names designed to strike fear in the hearts of the enemy. Here in the States, we name them after people. Who's going to be afraid of the USS Harriet Lane?

I am not sure that a research vessel is supposed to strike fear into the heart of an enemy what with not being a military vessel and all.

As to giving the money to a private PR firm is that not just another waste of public funds though?

A good name could be rustled up in a few hours down the pub on a Friday afternoon by the guys that are building it with a budget that stretches no further than a few pints, a few packets of peanuts and maybe a couple of pickled eggs.

originally posted by: nonspecific

A good name could be rustled up in a few hours down the pub on a Friday afternoon by the guys that are building it with a budget that stretches no further than a few pints, a few packets of peanuts and maybe a couple of pickled eggs.

If you want a really good name, give them tequila.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: nonspecific

A good name could be rustled up in a few hours down the pub on a Friday afternoon by the guys that are building it with a budget that stretches no further than a few pints, a few packets of peanuts and maybe a couple of pickled eggs.

If you want a really good name, give them tequila.

Yes but you might wish you had stuck with Boaty McBoatface then...

originally posted by: grainofsand
Off the top of my head, 400,000 care workers on £20,000 a year salary?

Ah, that would be 400,000 immigrants then? There is just not 400,000 health workers who are unemployed in the UK!

I would chuck £8bn into research and universities. Prestige projects like...

Skylon etc

New roads and trains!

Boring I know but our transport infrastructure is not fit for purpose.

And transport infrastructure is the core of a economy.

a reply to: RAY1990
what a disaster , the fact that the UK has allowed itself no safe exit strategy from this diabolical scheme.then again there was never supposed to be one was there.
The E.U. was created for fleecing people of money, culture and heritage, and its done a fine job of it, fifteen years ago on this very site we said it would happen and we got laughed at.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: grainofsand
Off the top of my head, 400,000 care workers on £20,000 a year salary?

Ah, that would be 400,000 immigrants then? There is just not 400,000 health workers who are unemployed in the UK!

I would chuck £8bn into research and universities. Prestige projects like...

Skylon etc

Well that's an interesting option to say the least.

Do the people struggling to survive and those using food banks really need space travel right now?

a reply to: nonspecific
Yes if it boosts the economy and provides JOBS

The aim needs to be to give able bodied people on welfare jobs not keep there welfare going.

Hi tec R&D and space travel is a growing industry sector,

originally posted by: crazyewok
New roads and trains!

Boring I know but our transport infrastructure is not fit for purpose.

And transport infrastructure is the core of a economy.

We are already putting £27.3 billion into transport and it is failing, would another £8.5 billion really make that much of a difference and it that the best way of spending the cash?

THE cost of restoring the local road network in England and Wales into reasonable condition would cost £11.8bn, and would take 14 years, according to the latest annual report in the state of the nation’s highway surfaces.

Daily Express(sorry) article

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific
Yes if it boosts the economy and provides JOBS

The aim needs to be to give able bodied people on welfare jobs not keep there welfare going.

Hi tec R&D and space travel is a growing industry sector,

and what role would these healthy but unemployed people from underprivileged under educated back grounds actually do on such a project?

I imagine the canteen will need a few dinner ladies and someone will have to mop the floors but I would have thought the kind of personnel required for this type of project would be well educated and already be in gainful employment.

It is kind of like rocket science...

Edit: I just checked their website and they are in fact looking for some Aerodynamics engineers.

That should get some layabouts off the sofa and back into full time work then...

a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nonspecific

A first world economy can not grow or thrive if it's infrastructure is failing apart or full to capacity.

It boring but roads and rail networks are the viens and arterys of this country and right now those viens and arterys are clogged.

And this has nothing to do with your need to get to and from work cheaply and effectively I suppose?

a reply to: nonspecific

Then there needs to be a bigger focus on getting the next generation proberly educated.

Stop funding Micky mouse degrees for a starts.

Only provide student loans and remove tuition fees )for the science and enginering degrees.

Plus there are still low skilled manufacturing jobs that will be made.